Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 6, 2014 5:30pm-6:01pm PDT

5:30 pm
meeting as part of the development of the staff network. >> but inometers in the castro or south of market before it was proposed. >> no, we didn't. >> in light of that how do you know since there's no communityometers how do he knows there's no serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource how do i know that. >> i'm going to defer to the planning department and the question of whether theres a serious or major disturbance whether it falls into the exemption class asking is one within the per view of the planning department and the environmental planning description of the department. the series or major disturbance is different than all the other language used in sequa and is
5:31 pm
specifically not saying any type of impact it is considered significant under sequa. the shuttle pilot program adds a temporary program involving detainment activity of moving vehicles within a network does not have a potential in and of itself to regulate the activity to result in lasting serious damage to any environmental resource that's the determination that we made on the basis of what was described in the project. there was nothing contributeables to the project that was described that will result in that level of damage >> let me ask it this way does
5:32 pm
the planning department building that the impacts on riders is a relevant analyze it doesn't matter what the riders think about this. >> the interaction of shuttle buses and riders is something to its something that will need to be considered under transportation analysis. when a project that doesn't quality for this exemption is proposed it's not a situation that disqualifies the project for this type of exemption it's not a damage to an environmental resource not a situation of usually circumstances, there are ongoing conflicts around muni riders everyday >> how do you know that unless
5:33 pm
you've spoken to the riders that actually held muni meetings to talk about that. how do he knows that? >> for one thing that's an aspect we received information from muni partially in their materials their insinuated and partially otherwise that indicated all of their concerns around the shuttles. the issue of how shuttles interact with muni riders one of the primary reasons that muni wants to try an approach toward regulating this activity and find a way to regulate the activity that will effectively reduce the conflicts.
5:34 pm
so we do very much understand the shuttle are creating inconvenience for muni riders they don't revises to the level of doing a pilot program of regulating shuttles wouldn't qualify for the exemption >> i don't think you know or can say those inconveniences revises to the level if you haven't talked to the people being inconvenience. i wanted to ask our deputy city attorney about the issue of illegal embattle we have a pilot that specifically allows those shuttles to essentially violate a section of the vehicle code. and specifically section 225
5:35 pm
hundred of the california vehicle code. is there an issue here legally with the pilot that allows those operators to essentially break state law? >> excuse me. deputy city attorney marla supervisor the policy merits of the sfmta to adapt the project as proposed are not at issue in the sequa appeal here today. the environmental review of that program and policy is at issue here >> i understand that but let me ask the gentleman mr. gibner is there do you have an opinion a as to who the city can allow a private operators to break state law? does the city this the authority
5:36 pm
to tell those prioritizes they don't have to comply with the code >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. the as my colleague ms. burns stated that particular question is not before the board the legal authority and the mta is the city agency that has the jurisdiction to adapt the program. our city department worked with the program to authorize the program our office signed and approving the resolution just like all the ordinances before the board indicating that the mta does have legal authority to meet with the program >> so it's the city attorney's office position to tell a private operator they can break
5:37 pm
the state law. >> that's certainly not what we would say there are a number of vehicle code regulations that law the red code to operate and advising the mta on this program we elevated those vehicles codes provisions including the code section that you sited and others and look at the code scheme and reached the conclusion that point mta has the authority to adapt this type of program. we're not signing off on a program if the city does not have the legal authority >> can you explain to me the reasoning behind that. let me put the question differently. so having heard you say that does the mta have the legal short to say those participants
5:38 pm
can break state law specifically the state code but the rest of us have to imply with us does the mta have to decedent who complies with the state law >> that's not an adequate description of what i said. the mta is not arthur the violations the mta is authorizing the regulation of red zone and the mta is exercising that authority >> let me ask the mta what their 30 years her - here from the chair to the mta. i don't know who with the mta are you going to enforce section
5:39 pm
22 of the vehicle code against the shuttle operators? >> through the president supervisor campos i'm not familiar with the code you cited. our intents with the programs we're with owe are covering is to identify the stops that would be able to be assessed by shuttles that are participating in the permit program. and thereby rendering all other stops unavailable to anyone permitted provider or not. >> it's illegal under the vehicle code for people to park in those red zones. i guess the question is whether it influences part of the 2 hundred stops with respect to
5:40 pm
the 2 hundred stopts that are part of the pilot are you going to enforced section 225 hundred and issue tickets to the operators >> i don't know what the code is but our understanding is the action that the municipal transportation agency board took as mr. gibner said it's not enabling anybody to violate the state law but gives mta the authority to allow the use of red zones and allow the use. is there someone at mta who knows the section of the code? again are you going to enforce this against the operators >> so the question would we be enforcing the part of the code that says only southern kinds of
5:41 pm
transit i'm not an attorney so i'll ask the city attorney to weigh in and the exception made by agency to prohibits all other uses from stopping at red zones. so maintained from the city attorney's office is that they're creating an exception through the prosecutor permit >> i'm not asking about the legality will you enforce this code against the operators we can deal with the city attorney. >> are you asking during the pilot program we will be gore that code for the 2 hundred stops that are included in the network or everywhere else. >> the 2 hundred stops >> yes. our muni investigators will be issuing tickets to those who don't have a permit that has
5:42 pm
been authorized by mta to use those zones. >> but if the operators pomegranates in the pilot you're not going to give tickets. >> the permit permits them to use the zones. >> will the private citizen use the zones. >> no. >> will you issue a ticket against private individuals. >> yes. >> so for the city of attorney's office how can the mta do that selectly enforce a section of the california vehicle code against one group but not against a the and and john gibner, deputy city attorney the best way to answer that the mta has the authority to regulate the zones.
5:43 pm
and i'm not sure what more to exactly answer our question other than the vehicle code authorized the mta exercise cert regulatory authority this is one of them >> i'm going to leave it open my colleagues have other questions. >> thank you, supervisor i have two quick questions. we've been told by the criminalists advocates that if we support this appeal that will jeopardizes future programs could you describe how those programs to collect data and have any of our programs ever been challenged successful on
5:44 pm
succeeding grounds in san francisco? >> certainly. we have issued class 6 exemptions for multiple project sponsored and sfmta addressing pedestrian safety and bicycle safety a recent example on ford street to 11th street for a proposal following a sizeable bicycle accidents and failed. there was a lane of traffic to be prohibited and the right turn changes to the street to provide protection for the bicyclists. we modeled the possibility for there to be significant impacts related to level of service from
5:45 pm
the change in travel los angeles. the moving forward did not demonstrate any potential significant effects but we did feel that we there was a legitimate reason to see what was happening on the ground whether the desired results would occur and the undesired result would not occur we've used the class 6 exemptions that way and in which it allows us to see think 0 the ground efforts of trying something out there's concern about the possibility ever community investment & infrastructure commission to an action that leads to environmental impacts or concerns. so another example were also identified we've used it for the early projects and we've being
5:46 pm
been using it on market street. to see if some of the changes on market street would again have the desire effects for vehicle traffic and the overly network and, of course, pedestrian safety and bicycle safety from reducing the vehicle traffic on right turns on market. a classic exception has not been challenged before the board of supervisors. we work with the project sponsor whether the sfmta or not sponsor to develop a program in our professional view fits within the class 6 exemption. one example of the project that changed is sf park proposed to
5:47 pm
apply to existing motors and some new meters based on neighborhood concerns sfmta removed the new parking meters so the physical changes soccer field with that project from the projects that were proposed for the classic. the second question we heard from former supervisor he mentioned the sequa boing plan i can speak that that appeal used for environmental arguments to create more bike lanes was tragic we know that bike lanes bisexuals have a better impact than car he suggested something what is your reaction to the decision >> i didn't have the pleasure of having worked on the bicycle plan at the time, but my
5:48 pm
understanding of the project the issues at hand in the bike plan were different it wasn't a pilot gathering information effort but a pilot as a permanent project. and so it was not asked her for a grace class 6. and second as the court determined there was a piece male and female issue involved the planning department was found to have split up related actions under separate environmental refunds there are there was a general rule exclusion for the entire framework and each bicyclist project was given another category there was a different action involved. the third issue was the court found physical changes for the
5:49 pm
bicycle plan specifically were the physical impacts of those were not fully analyzed there's differences >> the final question supervisor campos wagons focused on the lack of enforcement can you respond to the argument that the appellant have laid out we shouldn't be comparison those regulations because of the fact it alleging involves a lack of enforcement. >> what i can say sequa makes it laser clear that you look at the existing physical conditions whatever they might be and whatever contribute to and case law around the issue all pushed case law supports that. i'll ask the city attorney to address that >> deputy city attorney marla
5:50 pm
ms. jones is correct this year's several pushed cases specifically regarding what do we kuar in little rock part of the baseline this is related we compare what the environmental conditions are under the proposed project. the sequa guidelines are clear that you look at the environmental study should be studied at the time the project is proposed. there are a couple of different cases one that supervisor kim noted the sunset of sacramento an ongoing airport operation. that's been largely expanded without a conditional use and the city was working without the
5:51 pm
required permits and they came to get the approval for correct the ill legitimate it the fact that the airport was large and accident court upheld the consultants use of the baseline including an existing illegal expansion of the airport because it found that sequa requires you longtime the existing physical environment and compare took to the project and because of that the city the county rather ♪ case had subject evidence for the expanding the larger airport. okay. thank you. we have a number of colleagues on the roster >> thank you, mr. president. >> i want to condition with the
5:52 pm
questioning of ms. burns thank you for clarifying the california court of appeal or are the appellants talked about the two cases could you comment on those two cases and their relevance. >> the two cases they've cited in their papers it would be improper for the city to rely on those cases the river case i building is i don't have the full title it's the san francisco superior court kinds under the law we're kuar in little rock sequa looking at the sequa guidelines what they say
5:53 pm
and what any appellant level published opinion say and that's the intoirt of the sequa law that we consider. this case is a trial court decision it's not considered law for sequa purposes and related on a federal case that's also a federal trial case that come out of the federal trial court a couple of years the climate case in 2011 i believe. and the district you court case was analyzing the effects of lake tahoe under the financial environmental act and the environmental impact that case concerned the but yes, sir. without getting the proper
5:54 pm
permit they were going to regulate the both yes, sir. . the 9th circuit court of appeals hadn't reviewed did federal case they found that the problem with the tahoe recreational agency they didn't provide many substantial evidence. so the court sent the case back to the tahoe recreational agency and the ruling said the agency has discretion to determine the appropriate baseline. so it's a federal case not applicable to what's good morning here it's a federal court that would be subject to state jurisdiction and the
5:55 pm
appellants didn't provide the latter citation and it was rejected. >> it doesn't note that the case had been reversed. >> so the appellants belief didn't know that handbag reversed and they didn't know that. >> and typically you'll know the case you've relied on will be substantially reversed. >> so just to be clear the climate case the appellants rely ouch that was a san francisco supreme court case that wouldn't rely on sequa. >> it would be improper to consider on that part of the appellant level.
5:56 pm
>> so the spoisht case related open a federal decision that was substantially reversed by the court of appeals and the appellant doesn't know that. >> i have a question i don't know if it's for planning. thank you. i appreciate that you and that's what's the overall purpose of a pilot in making it sequa determination let's get back to the basics mates what's the purpose of the pilot project for the shuttle? >> charlie pain the purpose of
5:57 pm
this pilot program is to took the information we have now which is incomplete and respond to the need of for regulation. we know there are problems in the street. people have articulated very clearly the current situation is not working but we don't feel like he can come up with the information so the pilots persian to test out the piloting in a certain way our our information indicates that sharing southern kinds of muni zones works without conflict their long enough for sharing our zones without immense frequently and they're on the far side so what we're testing is really does sharing
5:58 pm
specifically select the muni zone reduce the impact of the consultant shuttles loading and unloading open bicyclists and people who no idea their muni bus to get to the curb to board and that's the over reaching purpose to inform a longer-term solution >> i probably want to bring up the mta golds is 0 ultimately have comprehensive regulars for the shuttles. >> yes. but this is a first step. >> so currently today does mta have enough data to with confidence be able to implement that sort of comprehensive
5:59 pm
regulations. >> we don't but the information we have from shuttle rear view mirrors is in compliance s in format and some information we just don't have. we think this approach of sharing will work but we want to ground test it first >> as part of the pilot program the mta will be receiving the data from participating shuttle drivers. >> yes. in several ways first through the permitted circulation we'll be asking for information about their vehicles and asking for information for example, about the maim their vehicle is registered under there's there are questions from members of the board for citations looking for that information we realize that many shuttle providers don't have
6:00 pm
their shuttles listed under their mes so we'll be asking for that to track that you we're requiring that the shuttle providers have on board a gps system and we'll be specifically specifically what the gps added what frequently during their operations in san francisco to allow us the improvement and to better understand the activities and operations of the shuttle systems. so that data will ultimately forbode into the mta's consideration through the process in terms of what the best regulation is >> yes. >> okay. now supervisor campos had i think raised a question with planning about